The Feds still see no medicinal benefit from marijuana. It’s still as dangerous as heroin. On Friday, the DEA refused the latest (9 years old) request to downgrade the classification.
Recent Comments
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
| Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
| Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
| moviedad on March against Monsanto this… |
49 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Fred Mangels
and refused the request in record time, according to Reason magazine:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/10/strike-three-for-rescheduling
July 11, 2011 at 3:04 pm
ED Denson
Yes, I understand that the “victory” in this ruling is that they made it at all. Now it can be challenged. Have things gotten absurd?
July 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Anonymous
Vote Obama for change!
July 11, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Bolithio
Imagine the cumulative effect of all the little bureaucracies that regulate ever little issue and policy. The headache of actually refining anything outweighs the money we spend on obsolete programs and ideas, not to mention the money spent on the inefficiency of implementing outdated policy. Until someone/something steps up with a no-holds-bars, new deal magnitude, approach to all of this, are we not just bound to stagnate? I guess Im assuming that “someone/something” is benevolent….crossing my fingers. lol
July 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Rose
Legalize it NOW.
July 12, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Eric Kirk
Works for me. Work on your party.
July 12, 2011 at 8:55 pm
tra
Work on your party
Frankly, both parties need a lot of work on this.
There is actually a portion of the Republican base that is for legalization — the libertarian / Ron Paul-type folks — but they are certainly a minority in their party, though that may be changing a bit (I’m not really sure about that) .
And there is certainly a portion of the Democratic base that is for legalization, at least in theory, but for most it is not considered a pressing issue, in fact it is sometimes portrayed as a “distraction” from more important stuff, and is something that many politicians are still embarassed to be identified with, since they know that publicly advocating for it will make them the butt of a lot of jokes. And then there are also still a whole lot of Democrats (including Obama) who dismiss the idea of legalization almost reflexively — either because they actually think it would be a bad idea, or because they are so afraid of being portrayed as “soft on drugs.”
Some Democrats (again, Obama comes to mind) even use the issue as an opportunity to publicly “punch the hippy” in the hopes that this will build up their moderate, middle-America image in the eyes of the “soccer Moms” and “NASCAR Dads” or whatever other ridiculous pseudo-constituency the consultants are selling this year. Of course lots of those “soccer Moms” and “NASCAR Dads” enjoy a nice relaxing joint after the kids are in bed, and others find themselves or their loved ones in need of the medicinal properties of the herb.
And of course the fastest-growing group of voters in nation are neither Republicans nor Democrats, they’re Unaffiliated/Decline-to-State. I’m not sure how the pro-cannabis/anti-cannabis positions compare in this group, but they are probably less supportive, on average, than most Democrats, but more supportive, on average, than most Republicans. But one thing that’s clear is that the number of Unaffiliated/Decline-to-State voters is growing, and it’s also clear that these voters are often the “swing voters” who throw elections one way or the other, so their support for legalization will be crucial.
July 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm
tra
I suspect that full legalization, at the federal level, will only happen when (a) a sizeable super-majority of the overall American public favors it, and (b) there is at least majority public support in the great majority of states, and (c) it’s clear to the politicians that this support is going to be a long-term trend, not a fad that will be reversed in a few years. Public opinion is trending in the right direction, but we’re just not there yet.
I think that about the best we can hope for in the next 5-10 years is a change in Federal policy that would allow each state to decide for itself, and have the Feds actually respect those state-level policies. In other words growing, selling, and possessing cannabis consistent with each state’s laws (which could be for medicinal use only, or also for recreational use, depending on what the state allowed) would no longer be against federal law.
And even that’s not going to be an easy sell in Congress, given that politicians from the strongly anti-cannabis states will fight tooth-and-nail against a state-by-state approach, arguing that legal growing in neighboring states will make their own laws against possession pretty much impossible to enforce (as if they weren’t already!).
Ironically, those complaining the loudest about a state-by-state approach will probably be the politicians from many of the same backward states that were always squealing about “states’ rights” back when that meant the ability to have legal segregation, prevent minorities from voting, and so on. Go figure.
July 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Eric Kirk
I think it would only take one major Republican leader to turn the tide. Just one.
Only Nixon could go to China.
July 12, 2011 at 10:47 pm
tra
Maybe someday, but at this point that seems like wishful thinking to me. Today’s Republican party is way more rigid and way more ideologically right-wing than in Nixon’s day. Heck, Nixon supported a guaranteed minimum income (reverse taxation), and other social policy goals that today’s Republican party would never tolerate (and today’s Democratic party would never even attempt). In many ways Nixon was well to the left of today’s mainstream Democrats.
If some “major Republican leader” came out strongly in favor of the Legalization of Marijuana today, its seems more likely to me that this person would cease to be a “major” Republican leader on the day they announced their support for legalization. They’d be a former major Republican leader, an outcast, a pariah and the butt of a million jokes. Why? Because at present I’d wager that less than 20% of the Republican base (maybe even less than 10%?) actually favor Legalization. Until that changes, the “one leader” would be pissing into a gale-force wind.
It seems a lot more likely to me that this is going to happen from the bottom up, not the top down. First it will be a narrow majority of the public, then the lower-level political leaders from areas that support it most strongly will get on board (and that’s about where we are right now), then the public support will gradually grow to the level of a 65-70% super-majority, and then, once it’s clear that the parade is coming with unstoppable momentum, all of the sudden a whole lot of “major” political leaders will hop out in front of the crowd, and will start marching in lockstep, acting as if they’d been leading the parade all along.
But I do think it will be interesting to see who will be the last to get on board — the major Republican leaders or the major Democratic leaders? Despite much greater support for legalization in the Democratic party base than in the Republican base, I’m having a hard time coming up with the name of even one “major Democratic leader” who has come out for full legalization.
Not exactly “Profiles in Courage,” but I guess that’s par for the course with that bunch.
July 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Not A Native
Oooh, its those Republicans and right wingers is it? Well right here in good ole’ SoHum, 65% voted against prop 19. So you just point your fingers and cluck your tongues about how horribly regressive those ‘other people’ are. Feels so much better to accuse someone else. Denial and hypocracy are joined at the hip with the new rural lifestyle.
July 13, 2011 at 4:17 pm
tra
Oooh, its those Republicans and right wingers is it?
Shooting from the hip again, I see. Try actually reading my comments and you’ll discover that I am quite clear on the fact that Democratic “leaders” are a big part of the problem, too. There are several paragraphs devoted to that, in fact.
And unless your memory is as faulty as your reading comprehension skills apparently are, you’ll recall that I agree with you that some people in Humboldt acted selfishly in voting against Prop 19, which though deeply flawed, was, in my opinion, clearly better than the status quo for most people.
July 13, 2011 at 4:35 pm
tra
Anyway, you can waste your outrage on the miniscule proportion of the American population that grows marijuana if you want, but obviously what growers think and how they vote really makes no difference whatsoever in whether/when the public at large and national-level politicians finally embrace Legalization.
The leadership (or lack thereof) of the President of the United States and other major political “leaders” could make a significant difference, though as I argued above, those “leaders” will probably continue to (at best) ignore the issue, and (at worst) play “punch the hippy” on the issue in an attempt to score Culture War points until enough momentum from below develops to make that a losing strategy.
July 13, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Eric Kirk
She’s right though TRA. There is a bit of hypocrisy. However, I voted for Prop 19, and I would legalize the drug in a minute even though it would impact my practice considerably. I think we would all figure it out and come out much better in the long run in a community with fewer secrets.
And while the Democrats can be blamed for being wimpy and weasels, but point is that leadership from just a single prominent Republican would turn it around. Somebody besides a fringe figure Ron Paul that is.
July 13, 2011 at 6:33 pm
tra
She’s right though TRA. There is a bit of hypocrisy.
Which I agree with, and have agreed with plenty of times previously. But the point is, what Humboldt pot growers think, and how they vote, doesn’t make a whit of difference to the overall Legalization movement in the U.S. It’s just NAN’s unhealthy hatred of all things rural Humboldt and especially all things SoHum that makes him/her believe that this is somehow relevant to the topic “still schedule 1 after all these years” and to the discussion of potential paths to legalization that ensued from there.
And that obsession with rural Humboldt pot growers is pretty silly, since there is plenty of pot being grown in Arcata and Eureka and McKinleyville and so on — the difference being that most of that growing is of the much more energy-wasting, residential-space-wasting, pesticide and fertilizer-intensive indoor pot growing variety. And then there’s the “epic” pot bust in Fieldbrook, where the enviro group staffer with the online bio boasting of all those years as a Planner was busted with 500 lbs packaged for sale and 300 plants. Yep, there’s a “bit of hypocrisy” all right…it’s just that it’s not restricted to the rural residents NAN loves to obsess about.
And while the Democrats can be blamed for being wimpy and weasels, but point is that leadership from just a single prominent Republican would turn it around.
As I argued above, I think that’s just pure fantasy. If they tried that today, that single prominent Republican would be hung out to dry by the Republican base and would be prominent thereafter only as a laughingstock, and as a cautionary tale to other prominent Republicans about how quickly heretics can be cast out and ostracized.
Nothing is going to “turn it around” other than the slow-but-steady process of the old hard-line pot-hating cultural dinosuars dying off, together with a gradual increase of tolerance/acceptance by more and more mainstream Americans. Once that process has progressed far enough, then possibly a “prominent Republican” speaking out might act as somewhat of a turning point, helping to speed things up a little bit, maybe helping to “break the dam” for other Republican politicians to speak out, but my guess is that at that point it won’t really matter that much — Legalization will happen with or without that one prominent Republican, because it will be in the interest of most politicians, Republican or Deomcrat, to try to get out in front of the parade.
July 13, 2011 at 7:09 pm
tra
…leadership from just a single prominent Republican would turn it around.
To make this argument a little bit more tangible, let’s imagine that tomorrow Mitt Romney (a very “prominent” Republican) came out with a statement strongly in favor of the full Legalization of Marijuana.
What do you honestly think would be the likely result of such an announcement by Romney? Here’s what I think would happen: Romney would immediately take a nose-dive in the polls in Iowa,, New Hampshire, and other early primary states, he’d lose the Republican nomination in a landslide with his advocacy of Legalization being highlighted as a key reason for his sudden downfall, and his only “prominence” after that would be as the butt of late-night comedy routines.
Other “prominent” Republicans would of course take notice and would fall all over themselves reassuring voters that they were totally, absolutely, completely anti-marijuana, and no prominent Republican leader woud dare to suggest that they were even open to the idea of Marijuana Legalization for at least another decade or more. Meanwhile, Obama and lots of other national-level Deomcratic “leaders” would have a field day attacking Romney and the Republicans for being “soft on drugs,” further painting themselves into the anti-Legalization corner they’ve already put themselves in with years of “hippy-punching” anti-pot rhetoric aimed at solidifying their bona fides as “moderates.”
Yes, somewhere down the line, when a few million more of the pot-hating dinosaurs have died off, and perhaps if the Ron Paul / libertarian faction of the Republican Party gains quite a bit more ground, then a “prominent Republican” might be able to come out in favor of Legalization and have that actually help the cause. But, at least in my estimation, the situation is nowhere near ripe for that yet.
July 13, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Not A Native
People aren’t stupid, they see how hypocritical and venal the self proclaimed ‘freers of the herb’ in SoHum are, and that casts a cloud over the entire legalization initiative. In fact the SoHum vote got statewide attention, it was news and a wakeup to some. The one thing voters can smell is duplicitous, and self serving promoters of change who talk one way but vote the other. Voters react to that by rejecting the legitimacy of the issue and maintaining the status quo.
tra casts aspersions and creates a fictional story as a way to direct attention to personalities and divert it away from the facts and truths of the issue. Hope he read last week’s NCJ cover story that spotlighted the uncaring greed in the hills of the Mattole where surprise, suprise token symbolic gestures that have been touted as ‘responsible stewardship’ for 30 years resulted in coho being exterminated. Between the lines the article documents denial and the Big Lie.
July 13, 2011 at 8:38 pm
tra
Do you have any evidence that Sohum pot growers voted against Prop 19 at a higher rate than Arcata pot growers?
Nevermind, I already know the answer: You don’t.
But by all means don’t let a lack of facts prevent you from jumping to your pre-determined conclusions. I certainly wouldn’t want to spoil your little hate-fest.
Keep on with your irrational hatred of all things SoHum, if nothing else, it’s amusing.
July 13, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Not A Native
What’s really amusing is seeing multiple posts one right after the other reiterating the same point that has already been rejected. Shows desperation and obsessive compulsive behavior. Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting you will influence everyone who has already disagreed. Eric shot you down and two long reply posts don’t change that. You give every indication of personality disorder, delusion of grandeur and extreme narcissism. You’ve really got nothing to more to add, you just make the same knee jerk point over and over, ad nauseum, diarrhea of the keyboard. One things for certain, you don’t have a wage job. You tend your garden ladies.
July 13, 2011 at 11:44 pm
tra
And as usual, when called out on the lack of factual basis for your claims, you quickly descend into a flurry of your usual ad hominem attacks. Can’t say I’m surprised by that any more.
Repetitive? Wow, now that’s the pot calling the kettle black! You repeat your same old rabid hatred of SoHum residents, with the usual unfounded claims that they are greedier and more “venal” than other people. Then when called out on your lack of evidence for that claim you revert to the same tired old personal attacks that you use again and again (including the usual projections of what I can only assume must be your own psychological issues), and then to put the icing on the cake you conclude by, once again (as usual) making the same old wildly inaccurate, fact-free claim about how I make a living. So utterly predictable, it’s almost like a formula.
But at this point I have come to expect that around 50% of all attempts to converse with you will quickly lead to one of your childish little meltdowns. And on any issue having anyting to do with rural Humboldt, or especially SoHum, it seems to be pretty rare that you can go more than two or three comments without throwing a little verbal tantrum more or less identical to that contained within your 10:36 comment.
Perhaps someday you’ll catch on to the fact that most adults can discuss, debate, and even disagree — even on issues where they have strong feelings — without descending into such a silly little tirade.
July 14, 2011 at 7:10 am
Eric Kirk
People, people, people! Can we get along? For the older people and the kids?
July 14, 2011 at 8:20 am
Not A Native
Yep, Eric, just hoping to put an end to the successive posts reflecting a disordered, frantic mind that pounds the keyboard, hits ‘enter’ and then immediately has ‘just one more thing’, Columbo style and posts another. Self obsessed, impatient minds, are transfixed that their every thought must immediately be disseminated as the latest and greatest revelation. As you’ve observed, there is real (harmful)denial going on locally. Calling it out wherever it appears is a model, demonstrating denial isn’t necessary for local dignity and respect. The salubrious effect of ‘speaking truth to power’ is most effective when applied to ‘local community denial’.
July 14, 2011 at 9:09 am
tra
There you go with your compulsive repetition of the same old ad hominem attacks, but among all that amusing display of insulting adjectives, you still have provided not one bit of evidence that SoHum pot growers voted against Prop 19 at a higher rate than Arcata pot growers. Your selective outrage reveals your anti-rural, anti-SoHum bias.
July 14, 2011 at 9:13 am
Plain Jane
Does anyone have a map of Humboldt County precincts? The precinct counts are individually available but without addresses. It would be great to be able to see just how people voted in different areas of the county (and city).
July 14, 2011 at 9:29 am
tra
P.J.,
SoHum voters voted against Prop 19 at a higher rate than Arcata voters, if that’s what you’re wondering. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether SoHum pot growers voted against Prop 19 at a different rate than Arcata pot growers .
While NAN seems obsessed with the need to claim that SoHum growers are more “hypocritical and venal” than others, that obsession lacks a factual basis. But obsessive minds do not require facts, so pre-determined conclusions based on groundless assumptions are more than enough for NAN.
July 14, 2011 at 9:58 am
Plain Jane
Since we have a secret ballot, there is no way to be sure how many pot growers voted for or against anything; however, it’s not much of a logical jump to accept the likelihood that there are more pot growers in So. Humboldt than in Arcata as well as more non-growing users in Arcata. Every non-growing user I know favored legalization and every grower was opposed due to the economic loss they would suffer. Of course, I don’t know everyone and those I know may not be representative of most growers, but they definitely voted their pocket book and I doubt they are all that different from growers in So. Hum. Whether they are venal or not is in the eye of the beholder, but their opposition to legalization which would destroy their chosen livelihood isn’t restricted to any area of the county.
July 14, 2011 at 10:25 am
tra
…their opposition to legalization which would destroy their chosen livelihood isn’t restricted to any area of the county.
I suspect you’re right about that, P.J., though there’s no way to know for sure.
One thing that is crystal clear, is that NAN’s obsessive need to single out SoHum pot growers, as if they were more selfish and hypocritical than the growers in Arcata and elsewhere, is not based on any evidence whatsoever.
July 14, 2011 at 10:53 am
Plain Jane
I need to backtrack a second. IMO, people who voted to keep pot illegal because they profit from it being illegal are venal by definition, commercial growers are only one segment of this group and they aren’t restricted to So. Hum.
July 14, 2011 at 12:32 pm
tra
I have no argument with that, P.J. I think you, NAN, Eric and I all agree that those who prefer to keep pot illegal in order to keep it more profitable for themselves, and despite all the damage caused by Prohibition, are being very selfish. And I also think it’s fair to say that those claim to be noble champions of “freeing the weed,” yet voted down Prop 19, are being hypocritical, too.
It’s NAN’s irrational insistence on singling out rural SoHum pot growers for this criticism that just doesn’t make any sense.
July 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Bolithio
Lets not forget that 19 did not turn back prohibition. It didn’t legalize pot either. As far as greed is concerned, it appeared to be set up to help the people who were big time already consolidate their hold on the industry (with the big permit fees and dispensary permit options) – that at least is what I heard from certain pot growers who voted against.
July 14, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Not A Native
I’ve never ‘singled out’ SoHum growers. Thats a tra delusion based on his fears that promulgating truths about SoHum will belie its facade, and people will come to understand the SoHum ethos is hippies turned redneck, the unholy alliance. That threatens tra’s livelihood.
But SoHum growers are uniquely the ones who loudly proclaim they are ‘freeing the herb’ and are proud to be outlaws and criminals because they’re ‘fighting for civil liberties’. But its a total lie, as the ballots demonstrate. The growers in NoHum on the other hand don’t claim particularly high ideals. They’re fairly upfront about caring about pot for profit, not pot for patients. That makes them more moral, because at least they acknowledge their criminality. What distinguishes SoHum from the rest is their exteme public hypocricy combined with venality. It all goes back to a SoHum culture of alienation and denial.
July 14, 2011 at 3:00 pm
tra
Bolithio,
Well I agree that there were legitimate arguments that Prop 19 was a flawed approach, for example it would have actually increased the penalties for anyone who “supplied” pot to 18-21 year olds (even their parents) and this despite the fact that these same 18-21 year olds are considered adults for most other purposes, including voting, or enlisting or even being drafted into the military.
But I also strongly suspect that for most growers those kinds of concerns, and the ones you raised above, were mostly just a fig-leaf for their real motivation: raw self-interest in maintining the profitability of their own grow operations, which rely on Prohibition as a price support and as protection from the development of much larger-scale growing operations.
On balance, despite it’s flaws, my own view is that Prop 19 would have done much more good than harm for many more people (and of course it could have been amended in the future to deal with some of the flaws).
It would certainly be interesting to see how SoHum, and Humboldt in general, would vote on a “clean” legalization initiative, one that simply repealed all California laws that prohibited cannabis cultivation, sales and possession by adults age 18+. Without some of the legitimate arguments against Prop 19 (the 18-21 year olds issue, a regulatory approach that would supposedly have favored large, corporate-type operations) to use as a fig leaf, how many of those pot growers would still oppose that kind of full legalization on the basis that with no regulation at all it would hurt their bottom line by allowing big growers to take over the market? I bet at least some still would, but others, stripped of many of their fig leaves, might no longer be able to justify doing so.
Perhaps some would still oppose it, at least ostensibly on the basis that with Federal Prohibition still in place, they’d just be trading state-level enforcement for Federal enforcement, over which the counties and the state would have even less control in setting priorities. (Personally I think that would be fallacious reasoning, since the Feds would have far fewer resources without their state and county enforcement partners, and so in practice would most likely have to focus even more on just a few of the biggest growers/traffickers).
Then throw this into the mix: What if, first, the Federal prohibition of cannabis cultivation, sales and possession by adults was completely repealed, and then a statewide “clean,” full Legalization initiative was offered to California voters — then how many growers would still be able to justify opposing that? And then a practical question: Wouldn’t the number of people who prefer that approach due to the complete nature of the repeal and the lack of accompanying regulations likley be outweighed by the number of people who would withdraw their support for Legalization under those conditions, precisely because of the lack of accompanying regulations?
Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll see such a clear test anytime soon, if ever. I suspect that when Legalization does finally make it past the 50% mark at the voting booth in California, it will be in some form that is probably not all that different from Prop 19, something that moves it from the status of an illegal, but in practice not-very-well-enforced and mostly unregulated situation, to a situation of a legal, but heavily regulated industry like alcohol or tobacco.
July 14, 2011 at 4:15 pm
tra
I’ve never ‘singled out’ SoHum growers….
…What distinguishes SoHum from the rest is their exteme public hypocricy combined with venality.
Detecting contradiction within your own comments is apparently not one of your strong points. At least you have your ad hominem attacks and endless supply of insults to fall back on. I guess that’s something.
That threatens tra’s livelihood.
Another wild swing…and another total miss. I produce a product that is entirely legal (not just in California, but in all 50 states and for that matter in every country in the world) and is totally unrelated to the pot industry. So as far as self-interest goes, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Your nonfactual but amusingly repetitve insistence that it must be otherwise is, I think, very revealing of your mindset — where apparently you assume that anyone who disagrees with your opinions must be doing so for reasons of raw self-interest. It’s quite a depressing, narrow-minded point of view, and I sincerely hope that someday you are able to progress beyond it.
But SoHum growers are uniquely the ones who loudly proclaim they are ‘freeing the herb’ …The growers in NoHum on the other hand don’t claim particularly high ideals. They’re fairly upfront about caring about pot for profit, not pot for patients.
I don’t know where you come up with this stuff, other than pulling it straight out of your nether regions, but one thing is for sure, you once again provide zero evidence for your assertion of some stark difference between NoHum and SoHum growers and their respective stated motivations.
Certainly the proprietors of the big Arcata (and now Eureka and Myrtletown) dispensaries with their on-site indoor grow operations claim they’re all about pot for patients, not money, though given their high prices I doubt too many people are fooled by that. Americans for Safe Access, with their local chapter based in Arcata, supposedly cares about civil liberties, yet declined to support Prop 19. And Paul Gallegos, who bases his pro-cannabis opinions on both medical and civil liberties arguments, publicly opposed Prop 19, but was re-elected with very strong support in Arcata.
I just don’t see any evidence whatsoever for your claim that SoHum pot growers either claim loftier ideals around the pot issue than Arcata pot growers, or that Arcata pot growers are any less hypocritical. Seems like just a bunch of wishful thinking cooked up to try to extricate yourself from the embarrassing position you’ve put yourself in with your irrational fact-starved arguments.
You’ve built your whole silly case on a foundation of made-up “facts” with not a shred of evidence to back up your claims. If that’s really the best you can do, I’m really starting to feel sorry for you.
July 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Not A Native
Just saying it isn’t so doesn’t refute a damn thing. But I’m amused to see how many keystrokes tra’s frantic obsessive personality needs relieve the stress and push the uncomfortable truth far away. Only two posts in a row this time. Lets try for at least three next time, OK?
And tra can claim a livelihood from whatever on a blog where no one can verify. But the evidence of compulsive posts, continually and nearly 24 hours a day, accompanied with detailed and explicit knowledge of pot growing, pot varieties, blackmarket/graymarket pot prices, and grow store locations is a telltale for what his actual vocation is.
July 14, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Eric Kirk
Are you two still at it? It’s getting late. Time for the makeup sex!
July 14, 2011 at 9:50 pm
tra
But the evidence of compulsive posts, continually and nearly 24 hours a day, accompanied with detailed and explicit knowledge of pot growing, pot varieties, blackmarket/graymarket pot prices, and grow store locations is a telltale for what his actual vocation is.
I see, so you believe your self-serving assumptions and wild leaps of illogic actually constitute evidence? Well of course you do, and why wouldn’t you? With no facts and a seemigly compulsive need to make ad hominem attacks based on those nonfacts, what other choice do you have?
Nevermind that by your own standards, you yourself must be in the pot biz, because you claim know a great deal about the pot industry, right down to the relative differences between the personal motivations of the majority of NoHum and SoHum pot growers. By your criteria, that should be proof positive.
Just “frantically, obsessively” claiming that I’m in the pot biz over and over again, ad nauseum, ad infinitum still does not make it so, and will never make it so, except in your own feverish imagination. But if it “helps you relieve your stress and push down the uncomfortable truth” that you’ve been exposed once again as making wild, evidence-free claims, well then have at it.
Meanwhile, you’ve still provided zero evidence for your claim that Arcata pot growers are less sanctimonious about their motives for growing pot than Sohum pot growers, and therefore you’ve completely failed to back up your original claim that SoHum pot growers are more “hypocritical” and more “venal” than other pot growers. Just wanted to let you know that your serial failures have not gone unnoticed, despite the lame attempt to change the subject to your groundless claims about how I make a living.
But go right ahead and throw another little ad hominem tantrum. I must admit that I do find it amusing to watch you twist, squirm and seethe as you impotently attempt to deflect from your abject failure to provide either facts or logic in defense of your indefensible claims.
July 14, 2011 at 10:00 pm
tra
Are you two still at it? It’s getting late. Time for the makeup sex!
Ick!
I will, however, have to admit that my willingness to continue to read NAN’s repetitive and at this point pretty unoriginal abuse and accusations might constitute something approaching blogmasochism.
And I’ll certainly admit to a slight sadistic streak in the small pleasure I derive from watching NAN twist and squirm and fail again and again as he struggles in vain to come up with anything approaching a logical argument with a factual basis. But it’s a complex emotion, as my delight in viewing his obvious discomfort is mixed with equal parts disgust and pity.
Such is the rich variety of human experience, when confronted with such a curious specimen as NAN.
July 15, 2011 at 1:19 am
suzy blah blah
Nan, I tend to agree with much of your assessment, that a large segment of SoHum growers are hypocritical, etc. I might even consider that tra may have some of the same character attributes. Even though it’s only based on my feelings and impressions, not reason and logic. But I disagree with your bet that Tra is a grower. Lots of neighbors around here know the stuff he talks, much of what he says is out of date and not 100% accurate, like he’d read about it or talked about it with acquaintances that are growers, but doesn’t have the kind of knowledge that comes from hands on experience. My guess is that at the most he grows a few plants, if any. Maybe he has a 215. but he is definitely not a professional pot grower. Mr Nice, would be an example of someone who has the kind of accurate knowledge gleaned from being in the business. Anybody can know about prices of lbs, clones, etc etc. And Tra knows a lot about the whole industry, that he probably picked up listening to conversations over dinner or whatever, but in my opinion, he doesn’t really have the feel for it that one gets from the inside.
July 15, 2011 at 7:59 am
tra
Thanks, Suzy, but you’re probably wasting your time — NAN just makes up his own facts to suit his anti-rural, anti-SoHum bias and to feed his unhealthy need to identify anyone who disagrees with him, even on the smallest point, as part of a clear-cut group of “enemies” who must have motives of personal financial self-interest.
NAN has demonstrated that, at least on this issue, he is not interested in either objective facts or recognizable logic, he has an obsessive need to believe that I’m part of the pot industry, because pointing to imagined motives of self interest is a key part of his strategy of making personal attacks in order to divert attention from his failure to back up his SoHum-dissing claims with any kind of evidence.
July 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Not A Native
just more denial and obfuscation from tra. Like Pinocchio, the more he writes the more he dissembles. Fact is, he repeated demonstrated long winded and rambling posts reptitively made ad nauseum. Lots of others have remarked on his obsession with politicican who he can’t refute so must simply rail against. Maybe some day I’ll take the time to count the numbers and volumes of his disgorgements but its clear he spends hours daily pounding the keyboard, his avocation.
July 15, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Eric Kirk
For the record, my theory is that NAN is a “she.”
July 15, 2011 at 6:50 pm
tra
What is it that I’m supposedly denying, obfuscating, or dissembling about?
My non-existent career as a pot grower?
All you’ve proven is that you can string a bunch of insulting sounding words together, but using words with no meaning behind them is just silly.
But feel free to keep on clowning, it’s always amusing.
July 15, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Anonymous
“For the record, my theory is that NAN is a “she.”
“she”? I’m still trying to figure out how you get a theory on the record? But you might be right, only a “she” could get it right and call it like it is! Why can’t you say woman? “She” called it right on the mark. Well maybe the Pinocchio metaphor was over the top, but other than that it was spot on, good show, carry on…………
tra, let me paint this picture for you; extend your left arm straight out in front of you, bend your wrist up and look at the back of your left hand, make an “L” using your thumb and index finger, bend the other three fingers to your palm of the same left hand (here comes the tricky part), now place the back of your left hand to your forehead……………………
July 15, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Eric Kirk
Anonymous – are you playing for a James Joyce effect or something? Suzi makes more sense.
July 15, 2011 at 10:28 pm
tra
Anonymous 7:53,
Congratulations, you’re the runner-up for today’s Meaningless Insults Award, with an honorable mention in the Lack of Originality category.
(Sorry, but NAN still takes First Prize. Better luck next time.)
July 17, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Anonymous
tra its no different than what you have dished out in the past, only this time you were all by yourself and kept digging in deeper and deeper, not having the sense to stop, look and listen. You get what you pay for time after time, or should I say post after post………………………………
July 18, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Not A Native
to each their own symbolism. anon 7:53 may be cryptic but gets it too. As suzy points out SoHum growers proudly self identify as rednecks.
The SoHum grower disseminators of untruths like ‘man who shits in the woods’, exceed their NoHum brethern in arrogance, hypocricy, and denial. And alas the young people of SoHum also get it, or more correctly they have to pay the price for it,
July 20, 2011 at 9:26 am
Anon
Not A Native is a real piece of work. Lots of hot air, but no facts. Gets called on it and goes all haywire with a bunch of insults. What a tool.
July 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Not A Native
OOH anon you have the most insightful comments and a wealth of facts to share. NOT! Emma Worldpeace, with greater insight than I have, has already belied and revealed the rampant denialism in SoHum .